Will an attacking player ever be #1 in the world again?

I just want to say I am not even 17 yet and I lean away from the modern game. I think Djokovic is a obviously a very talented player and everything, but his play style is too similar to a lot of others, IMO. He does a good job being unique when compared to those specific players though. Nadal can be nice to watch, with his excessively curved shots that are at times impossible to be returned. So I think Nadal is cool, too. But Djokovic-Nadal has to be the single worst, most uninteresting rivalry that is still significant in the Open Era. And that is why I like your claim about how contrasting play styles, an attacker and a baseliner, create a nice viewing experience. Yay Federer-Nadal. My favorite player is Federer, although I do not feel that strongly towards net play as a whole. Also, I hate full polyester strings.
I think Novak murray matches are even worse than nadal Novak matches.

nadal can be succeptible to pace so Novak usually Plays quite offensive against him.

murray on the other Hand is not bothered much by pace so murray Novak matches tend to be really defensive grindfests because nobody wants to give the other one pace.
 

tlm

G.O.A.T.
Of course. Anyone who can go into frequent ~20 shot rallies that give numerous opportunities to go to the net and forego them, is an aggressive and exciting versatile player. Accept my apologies.
Going to the net only works effectively if used very selectively in the pro game, just the way it is. These guys are playing for huge money they do not use ineffective outdated playing style in 2014.

So now according to the dinosours you are only agressive if you charge the net? That is hilarious, there is plenty of aggressive attacking going on without any net rushing.
 

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
Going to the net only works effectively if used very selectively in the pro game, just the way it is. These guys are playing for huge money they do not use ineffective outdated playing style in 2014.

So now according to the dinosours you are only agressive if you charge the net? That is hilarious, there is plenty of aggressive attacking going on without any net rushing.
I am not suggesting tennis is S+V or pushing. I am saying people should not be allergic to the net. Waiting for a mistake is bad tennis for viewing. Playing 1 minute points because you need to recover after trading 50 cc shots is bad tennis for viewing.
 

Jim Lefty

Rookie
If "attacking player" means serve and volley, then the answer is absolutely not.

Banning poly isn't going to change this on its own either.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
I just want to say I am not even 17 yet and I lean away from the modern game. I think Djokovic is a obviously a very talented player and everything, but his play style is too similar to a lot of others, IMO. He does a good job being unique when compared to those specific players though. Nadal can be nice to watch, with his excessively curved shots that are at times impossible to be returned. So I think Nadal is cool, too. But Djokovic-Nadal has to be the single worst, most uninteresting rivalry that is still significant in the Open Era. And that is why I like your claim about how contrasting play styles, an attacker and a baseliner, create a nice viewing experience. Yay Federer-Nadal. My favorite player is Federer, although I do not feel that strongly towards net play as a whole. Also, I hate full polyester strings.
Really? When you have Murray-Djokovic rivalry in the mix?
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
Completely wrong. Putting Nadal and Djokovic who have quite different styles, together and also saying Djokovic's "default setting"is defense witch could not be further from the truth.

Nadal is defensive minded player who is good turning defense into ofense.
Djokovic is offensive attacking minded player - aggressive baseliner who also happens to play excellent defense.
This is true. You wouldn't be able to explain away Djokovic's winner to UE ratio otherwise.

Djokovic goes for winners as soon as he can, while Nadal (I dunno if on purpose or accident) tends to prolong rallies even if he's in a position to hit a winner and end the point.

Nadal's game is curious in my opinion. It's not offensive but it's not strictly defensive either, even though he incorporates elements of both in his game. I almost want to classify his game as passive-aggressive.
 

tlm

G.O.A.T.
I am not suggesting tennis is S+V or pushing. I am saying people should not be allergic to the net. Waiting for a mistake is bad tennis for viewing. Playing 1 minute points because you need to recover after trading 50 cc shots is bad tennis for viewing.
I will agree that even though S+V is gone there are a lot of chances to come in and finish the point missed in the pro game today. But I don't believe they are just waiting for a mistake that often, it is more like a strategic baseline battle.

As far as bad viewing that is exactly what watching the big serve and run to the net tennis is. A couple of years back fed played sampress in a few exhibition matches. They had these matches on fast hard courts and it was mostly a serving contest followed by 1 or 2 shots and points over.

This was a major bore to watch, to any of you that like this play go back and watch these matches. Maybe you guys will think it is great but to me this was the worst tennis to watch that I have ever seen.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
If Federer isn't an attacking player then I don't know what is. He made #1 a couple years ago, so it's clearly still possible.
You're new here. You'll learn - there are tennis 'experts' on these boards who think some of the Top 50 are 'pushers' - LOL!

Look at the numbers, Borg, great baseliner, right? Yet he spent more time at the net, about 30%, than Fed, so you can say Borg was more aggressive, less a baseliner than Federer. Numbers don't lie.
But in that era if you didn't come in at Wimbledon, you were dead. If Fed got to play on those courts - and the faster courts at the USO when Sampras was winning titles, he'd be living at the net.
 

T-Noone

Professional
I think Djokovic and Nadal are both attackers in their own way. Djokovic is more of a standard winner hitter....while Nadal attacks with blistering spin that eventually results in FORCED errors...the one stat that no one talks about.
 

SublimeTennis

Professional
You can attack from the baseline. I mean, he's clearly not playing defense or wanting to get into long rallies, so I'm not sure what else you would call it.
Yea, I mean this guy blew this thread by not giving a good definition of "Attacking". When I hear "Attacking" I think aggressive serve and volley, every shot a winner or set up for a winner.

Yea I agree with the guy above, there will be someone out there who will come forward on points, grab the ball on the rise or mid-air and wipe everyone out, wish they would. That dude who wiped out Fed at last years Wimby LOOKED great, would love a player like that, or at least SOME VARIETY, now it's just 1. Who is in better shape 2. Who is the most consistent that is champ, Tennis has lost it's greatest asset, BRAINS, STRATEGY, TOUCH
 

tlm

G.O.A.T.
Yea, I mean this guy blew this thread by not giving a good definition of "Attacking". When I hear "Attacking" I think aggressive serve and volley, every shot a winner or set up for a winner.

Yea I agree with the guy above, there will be someone out there who will come forward on points, grab the ball on the rise or mid-air and wipe everyone out, wish they would. That dude who wiped out Fed at last years Wimby LOOKED great, would love a player like that, or at least SOME VARIETY, now it's just 1. Who is in better shape 2. Who is the most consistent that is champ, Tennis has lost it's greatest asset, BRAINS, STRATEGY, TOUCH
Keep dreaming because you are not going to see a player win with all out go for broke tennis consistently. You are completely wrong about tennis losing brains, strategy, and touch. There is much more brains in tennis now because the big serve and run to the net game is done, which was a major bore to watch.
 

SafinIsGOAT

Rookie
As far as bad viewing that is exactly what watching the big serve and run to the net tennis is. A couple of years back fed played sampress in a few exhibition matches. They had these matches on fast hard courts and it was mostly a serving contest followed by 1 or 2 shots and points over.
The reason the match was boring was because Sampras was old and slow and Federer was going easy on him. There were a lot of failed net points because Sampras was so slow coming into the net. It made for a good highlight reel nonetheless. That's more than I can say for modern finals between top players. I mean, look at this garbage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs5rd67yP1k.
 

sportsfan1

Hall of Fame
Can they bring back wooden racquets? I mean baseball still uses wood, not aluminium bats. Don't know why tennis decided to ditch wood long time ago?
 

SafinIsGOAT

Rookie
Nadal's game is curious in my opinion. It's not offensive but it's not strictly defensive either, even though he incorporates elements of both in his game. I almost want to classify his game as passive-aggressive.
Nadal whips the ball in a general direction and sometimes it gets enough angle to be a winner. He rarely hits an intentional winner unless he's forced to (e.g. needs to hit a passing shot). He's more of a reactionary than a point constructor.
 

tlm

G.O.A.T.
Nadal whips the ball in a general direction and sometimes it gets enough angle to be a winner. He rarely hits an intentional winner unless he's forced to (e.g. needs to hit a passing shot). He's more of a reactionary than a point constructor.
He is one of the best point constructors the game has ever seen. He rarely hits an intentional winner? That is more than hilarious. So when he pounds the ball to the rightys backhand repeatedly and then rips it down the line that is not a point constructed? Let me guess he is just whipping the ball in that general direction.LOL
 
Last edited:

SublimeTennis

Professional
Keep dreaming because you are not going to see a player win with all out go for broke tennis consistently. You are completely wrong about tennis losing brains, strategy, and touch. There is much more brains in tennis now because the big serve and run to the net game is done, which was a major bore to watch.
"More brains in tennis now"? Wow!
 

firepanda

Professional
Nadal whips the ball in a general direction and sometimes it gets enough angle to be a winner. He rarely hits an intentional winner unless he's forced to (e.g. needs to hit a passing shot). He's more of a reactionary than a point constructor.
That's true to an extent, with the exception of your last statement. He struggles to hit outright winners, since he has a strange need to put 5000 rpm of spin into all his shots. That doesn't mean he's no a point constructor. He's shown a lot of strategic versatility trying to get past Djokovic and has executed a particularly effective strategy against a player we all know and love, time and time again.
 

spinovic

Hall of Fame
Good question.

I think every one under 30 thinks Djoko and Nadal are the greatest players every and love "modern" tennis. They like to see the 20-30 ball rallys.

But, I would like to see more net play and less baseline bashing.

It is possible that players will become so athletic that they can come in even on modern slow courts and against poly strings. So, my answer is without court or string changes, it may take years to see someone who attacks dominate on anything other than grass.

If ATP restricted poly usage and/or standardized hard court speed to be faster than today, we could see a change quickly. If all hard courts and indoor courts were the speed of the US Open in the early 2000s, we would see a significant change in the game.

Contrasting styles of a baseliner and an attacking player make better viewing in my opinion.

But I am an old fart so what do I know.
No matter how athletic they become, when a passing shot dips to your shoelaces, you are not hitting a good volley.
 

Raphael

Semi-Pro
I miss the serve and volley game. Having S&V players added variety to the pro circuit.
These days, I feel that many of the top players have similar games, they just execute the offensive baseliner game better or worse than others.
 

rossi46

Professional
"More brains in tennis now"? Wow!
Agree with you, there is no strategy in today's game, 50 shot rally's waiting for someone to make an error is not strategy. Djokovic's strategy of coming into the net against Wawrinka in the AO was an example of brainless tennis.
 

tlm

G.O.A.T.
Agree with you, there is no strategy in today's game, 50 shot rally's waiting for someone to make an error is not strategy. Djokovic's strategy of coming into the net against Wawrinka in the AO was an example of brainless tennis.
Ya these are the best athletes the sport has ever had and a few of the best tennis players the game has ever seen. These guys are playing for millions of dollars and paying big money for their coaches. But there are some here that claim that there is no strategy in the game.

Wow this beyond hilarious, so let me see these guys are just like some league pushers I play against just keep the ball in the court and wait for the error. It is amazing what can be learned from this site. So the pro game is totally brainless tennis with no strategy whatsoever.lol
 

ultradr

Legend
This whole modern defensive game started with Federer when Wimbledon and US Open finished the slowing down their surfaces by 2003-2004.

If guys like Raonic or Tsonga becomes #1, I would declare attacking players finally have come back 1st time since Sampras Agassi era.
 

President

Legend
This whole modern defensive game started with Federer when Wimbledon and US Open finished the slowing down their surfaces by 2003-2004.

If guys like Raonic or Tsonga becomes #1, I would declare attacking players finally have come back 1st time since Sampras Agassi era.
Federer is not and was never a defensive player. He is constantly looking to dictate play and take the initiative. Way more often than not, he finishes the match with more winners than his opponents. I would actually bet that Federer has hit more winners than anyone in tennis history. He isn't the most aggressive player ever but he is certainly aggressive, more so than a guy like Agassi.
 

droliver

Professional
Attacking tennis does not equal serve and volley, and today's players are actually playing a much more strategic game because the defense has improved so much. There are lots of attacking play from today's players, it's just not off the serve in the traditional sense.

Lots of points are finished at the net and from inside the service line, as pretty all players go for kill shots on anything short. If that's not "attacking" tennis I don't know what is
 

tlm

G.O.A.T.
This whole modern defensive game started with Federer when Wimbledon and US Open finished the slowing down their surfaces by 2003-2004.

If guys like Raonic or Tsonga becomes #1, I would declare attacking players finally have come back 1st time since Sampras Agassi era.
Raonic Or Clownga become #1 again just when you think you have heard it all. Raonic is basically just another servebot that moves around like the dork that he is. And tennis would be great with him as #1?

As johnny mac has said you cannot be serious, then there is the genius tsonga or I mean clownga. See if we really want to talk about brainless tennis he is the poster child.

The days of the servefest or more commonly known as borefest are gone and dead forever. I have been reading this same crap for years on this site but nothing changes. The modern game is here to stay.
 

burn1986

Banned
I think we're talking serve and volley, like Edberg. I doubt we will ever see that kind of player again. Points may be finished at the net, but not primarily by serve and volley.
 

tlm

G.O.A.T.
Attacking tennis does not equal serve and volley, and today's players are actually playing a much more strategic game because the defense has improved so much. There are lots of attacking play from today's players, it's just not off the serve in the traditional sense.

Lots of points are finished at the net and from inside the service line, as pretty all players go for kill shots on anything short. If that's not "attacking" tennis I don't know what is
Exactly right very well put and should be obvious to anyone that watches tennis and actually understands what they are seeing. Like you said the game today is more strategic than ever.
 

tlm

G.O.A.T.
Federer is not and was never a defensive player. He is constantly looking to dictate play and take the initiative. Way more often than not, he finishes the match with more winners than his opponents. I would actually bet that Federer has hit more winners than anyone in tennis history. He isn't the most aggressive player ever but he is certainly aggressive, more so than a guy like Agassi.
Fed has always been an attacking player, for anyone to think that fed is a defensive player is beyond belief.
 

SafinIsGOAT

Rookie
Federer is not and was never a defensive player. He is constantly looking to dictate play and take the initiative. Way more often than not, he finishes the match with more winners than his opponents. I would actually bet that Federer has hit more winners than anyone in tennis history. He isn't the most aggressive player ever but he is certainly aggressive, more so than a guy like Agassi.
Agassi would be considered offensive by today's standard. Same with Michael Chang. Those guys rarely hesitated to hit an approach shot when they got a short ball.
 

unclenimrod

Rookie
This is a weird thread…but court speed definitely plays a huge role in who wins a certain tournament and what style they win it with. Fed wins nearly every indoor tourney because defensive tennis is useless on those courts. Djoker is a ridiculous athlete and can somehow compete on that surface, but behind him there is no one capable of competing on the surface with anything but an attacking game. Look at the world tour finals results the last decade and find out who has gotten to the finals, what the scores were in matches contested between offensive and defensive players (and nadal, btw, is not offensive when the courts are fast).

Has anyone here seen Rod Laver play in a match? He was Djokovic in his era…frustrated the heck out of players with his defensive skills and speed combined with his ridiculous shot making and pace…but he was one better than Nole cuz he could play at net like nobody's business. Why did Fed dominate for 5 years while the rest of the tour was up and down on all surfaces except clay? Because there were actual differences in court speed and Fed was skilled enough to play on all of them. Now every court is the same.

So will an attacking player ever be #1 again? yeah…but not until they find a happy medium in court speed instead of this sllllooooowwwwww stuff they all play on now.
 
Top